End of preview

This is an unformatted preview. Sign up to view the full document

End of preview

In this paper I will argue that in the given situation Dr Rhonda has a moral obligation to use Patient Xs organs to save eight peoples lives A moral obligation is choosing to do what is right for the greater good of humanity It is a choice that has outcomes that will benefit more people than they will harm I will explain each premise of this argument present a plausible objection to the argument and then counter that objection by demonstrating that the plausible argument is flawedPatient X is terminally ill and will die soon All of the doctors have been asking him to donate his organs when he dies because there are never enough organs to go around By donating his organs Patient X can help save up to eight peoples lives Right before he dies Patient X tells Dr Rhonda and only Dr Rhonda that he does not want to be an organ donor for some unknown reason After his death the doctors of the other patients who are in need of organs rush in and ask Dr Rhonda if the patient agreed to be an organ donor Dr Ronda is the only one who will ever know what Patient X decided The first premise of this argument is that if you have a moral obligation to save other peoples lives without harming anyone else you ought to do so By giving the other doctors permission to use Patient Xs organs Dr Rhonda is able to save people who might have otherwise died In addition Patient X is already dead so he will not be harmed or feel any pain if his organs are removed Dr Rhonda has a moral obligation not only as a doctor but also as a human being to safe as many people as she can without harming anyone The second premise is that by using Patient Xs

@Kibin is a lifesaver for my essay right now!!

- Sandra Slivka, student @ UC Berkeley

Wow, this is the best essay help I've ever received!

- Camvu Pham, student @ U of M

If I'd known about @Kibin in college, I would have gotten much more sleep